Written by
Gellert Kiss
Litigation Solicitor
It is undeniable – artificial intelligence is becoming part of everyday life. It can suggest a meal using the ingredients in your fridge, plan a route around an unfamiliar city, draft an email or explain a complicated subject in plain English. Used sensibly, AI can save time and help people get started.
But can AI replace a lawyer when you are involved in a dispute or facing court proceedings? In short, no. AI may be useful for general information, but it is not a substitute for legal advice, tactical judgment or representation in litigation. Relying on it without proper legal guidance can make a legal problem more expensive and difficult to resolve.
Key Takeaways
AI can be useful for general legal information, organising facts and preparing questions, but it cannot replace the legal advice, experience and tactical judgment of an experienced litigation solicitor.
AI-generated answers can be inaccurate, outdated or based on incorrect legal authorities or jurisdictions. Relying on them without verification can lead to missed deadlines, procedural errors, and unnecessary legal costs.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal case of Hancox v Sutherland and Others (EAT 139) highlights the risks of relying on AI-generated legal documents. Parties remain responsible for the accuracy, relevance, and procedural compliance of anything they submit to a court or tribunal.
Seeking advice from an experienced litigation solicitor at an early stage can help protect your position, preserve evidence, meet important deadlines, develop an effective legal strategy and avoid costly mistakes.
When AI creates more work
I recently saw a LinkedIn post from an intellectual property solicitor making an important point. Some clients were using tools such as ChatGPT to prepare emails to their lawyers or identify questions to ask. At first glance, that seems sensible. Clients want to understand their position and make the most of their time with their solicitor.
The difficulty is that AI can produce a long list of additional issues, questions and possible arguments. Some may be relevant, but many will not be. A client may arrive with twenty questions generated by AI, even though only two relate to the real legal issue.
The solicitor must then spend time explaining why the other questions do not matter, correcting inaccuracies and bringing the discussion back to the points that could affect the outcome. Where lawyers charge by the hour, that additional work can increase legal costs quickly.
This does not mean that clients should avoid asking questions. They should ask questions and expect clear answers. The value of a lawyer is in identifying which questions matter, what evidence is needed, what can safely be ignored and what requires urgent action.
Litigation is not simply information
Legal disputes are not solved by finding a rule online and applying it mechanically. Litigation involves assessing evidence, understanding procedural rules, anticipating how the other side may respond and deciding what will best protect your interests.
For example, a person may have a legal point that is technically arguable but commercially unhelpful. Pursuing it might inflame the dispute, increase costs or distract from a stronger argument. An experienced litigation solicitor does not simply list every possible point. They decide which points should be made, when they should be made and how they should be presented.
That is tactical judgment. It develops through legal training, experience of real disputes and an understanding of how courts and opponents behave in practice.
AI cannot meet with a client, assess whether a witness appears uncertain, judge whether a settlement offer is likely to be accepted or understand the personal and commercial pressures behind a dispute in the way an experienced lawyer can. It cannot take responsibility for a strategy that may affect your home, business, reputation or finances.
The risk of inaccurate answers
AI can also be wrong. It can produce answers that sound confident and convincing but are inaccurate, incomplete or based on made-up legal authorities. This is often called “hallucination”.
An AI tool may refer to cases that do not exist, misunderstand what a genuine case decided or overlook a crucial change in the law. It may also provide an answer based on the wrong jurisdiction. Someone in England and Wales could receive information based on Scottish law, United States law or another legal system altogether.
Even where a general legal principle is correct, the details matter. Deadlines, court forms, pre-action requirements, rules on service and costs consequences can all determine whether a case proceeds successfully. Missing a time limit or filing the wrong document can have serious consequences.
Courts and tribunals expect parties to comply with procedural requirements, whether or not they are represented. Saying that an AI tool provided the information is unlikely to resolve the problem.
A warning from the Employment Appeal Tribunal
The dangers are not merely theoretical. In Hancox v Sutherland and Others EAT 139, a claimant representing himself in an employment appeal submitted a purported skeleton argument generated using ChatGPT.
The document ran to approximately 300 pages and almost 132,000 words. This was vastly longer than the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s usual guidance, under which skeleton arguments should generally be between five and fifteen pages.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal criticised the document as entirely unacceptable. Rather than helping to clarify the issues, its length risked obscuring them. The claimant ultimately did not rely on the document at the hearing and accepted that much of its contents lacked credibility.
The case is a useful warning to anyone considering using AI to conduct their own case.
The case also demonstrates that people remain responsible for documents they submit, even when those documents have been prepared with the assistance of AI. Any document must comply with the relevant procedural rules and be checked carefully for factual, evidential and legal accuracy.
Using AI sensibly
None of this means that AI has no place in legal matters. It may help someone understand basic terminology, organise a timeline of events, prepare factual notes or identify questions for an initial appointment.
However, it should be treated as a starting point, not an authority. Do not assume that information supplied by AI is correct, current or applicable to your situation.
Do not submit AI-generated correspondence, pleadings, witness statements or tribunal documents without obtaining legal advice.
Speak to Howell Jones Solicitors early
The earlier a lawyer becomes involved, the more options are usually available.
Early advice can help you preserve evidence, meet deadlines, avoid damaging admissions and consider settlement before positions become entrenched.
Trying to manage a dispute alone with the help of AI may feel cheaper at first. But if the wrong argument is pleaded, an important deadline is missed, or unnecessary correspondence is sent, the cost of putting matters right can be far greater. It may become necessary to apply to the court or tribunal to amend documents, seek relief from sanctions or correct a procedural error. That can increase both expense and delay.
AI is a useful tool, but litigation requires more than information. It requires judgment, strategy, empathy and accountability. If you are involved in a dispute or considering court or tribunal proceedings, speaking to one of our experienced litigation solicitors at an early stage can help you make informed decisions and avoid costly mistakes.
Contact Howell Jones, Litigation Solicitors in Surrey, for more information on our comprehensive range of litigation legal services.
